forums

Official Michael Irvin* Sues Marriott for $100 Million

I've Gone back and forth on this one. Initially thought it was all BS. Figured the fact that Irvins lawyers wanted the video released would show he didn't do anything wrong. Then more details came out about the accusation, and I thought the "slapping his head three times" detail was peculiar. Didn't sound like something a person would invent to make a story sound more credible. Wanted to see if it was on video. Kinda looks like that part, at least, is true.

Now as for the rest, I think maybe he made a awkward pass at the lady ( Hey you miss 100% of the shots you don't take). I think Irvin has several witnesses who said they didn't hear him say anything of a sexual nature. Don't think they are lying, though maybe they didn't hear the full conversation. I also still think it's possible he didn't say what he's accused of saying because it wouldn't make sense to be so insistent on releasing the video. Now I'm not sure what to believe. If Irvin was being prosecuted for a crime, there would be so much reasonable doubt there is no way he'd get convicted. But here he is suing the hotel for defamation, and I don't think a judge or jury is going to say Marriott acted with "actual malice." (has to be actual malice since Irvin is a public figure)
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
Is there a credible 3rd party (or parties) who were present that have said they can corroborate either person's version of events??
Click to expand...
No idea. I just cannot imagine why Michael‘s lawyers would file a lawsuit and theoretically invite the woman who was allegedly accosted to testify about what Michael said to her. She will be a very credible witness because she has no financial incentive whatsoever. And Michael cannot refute anything she said, because he admitted, which is evidence, that he doesn’t remember what was said. This is just bad lawyering. I’d be surprised if this is even a six-figure settlement.
 
AlexCane said:
This will get settled. It'll never get to court. But how does it play for Michael when one witness testifies he said that. And then Michael testifies "I don't remember what I said." Those optics are not good. That's why you just let this go. If, on the other hand, Michael was adamant that he said, "xyz" so be it, but he's gonna get on the stand and tell a jury with a straight face "I don't know what I said?" He can't even refute what he said because he doesn't remember. Any good lawyer will fry Michael on cross.

/I still love Mike and if the Hilton asked me to defend them I'd claim conflict lol.
Click to expand...
it's her burden of proof and her body language in part reveals that she wasn't "that" offended by getting offered BBC (if it was offered) because she shook his hand at the end of the exchange.

his damages are reputational which is impossible to measure and therefore not awardable. but it will get settled and he'll get a million or two.
 
AlexCane said:
Except the problem is, that Michael's brilliant legal team have propagated and sensationalized this story and made it a conversation where there likely would be none. Michael's lawyers have probably hurt Mike's reputation more than the Marriot. If not for his brilliant jurists, I doubt any of this ever becomes a story, particularly if they didn't decide to file a lawsuit for . . . /Austin Powers voice/ . . . $100 million dollars. LOL. Not even a dead child, parent or spouse rakes in that cash. I can't take his lawyers seriously. Clowns.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was off the air for 1 week while it was investigated and then on right after. How was he harmed? Was he even docked pay? Not everything warrants a lawsuit. The better tactic would be to just let it go. The news cycle is violent. We know this. Instead, we get another silly lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was already a story.

Additionally, any prospective employers would surely know about it. He was already harmed.

The fact that more people nationally know about it is not relevant to the possible income harm suffered, because most of those people would not be prospective employers, the people that would hire him or continue to pay him have already been drenched in the information or misinformation way before any of this publicity that you’re claiming.

You’re trying way too hard to make this look as bad as possible for him.
 
rsa coral gables said:
it's her burden of proof and her body language in part reveals that she wasn't "that" offended by getting offered BBC (if it was offered) because she shook his hand at the end of the exchange.

his damages are reputational which is impossible to measure and therefore not awardable. but it will get settled and he'll get a million or two.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what happened but he spent more time talking to the Marriott employee in the lobby than @Cryptical Envelopment has spent talking to hotel employees his whole life and he has Vibranium level status at Motel 6…
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
it's her burden of proof and her body language in part reveals that she wasn't "that" offended by getting offered BBC (if it was offered) because she shook his hand at the end of the exchange.

his damages are reputational which is impossible to measure and therefore not awardable. but it will get settled and he'll get a million or two.
Click to expand...
It’s not her burden. It’s Michael’s. He’s the plaintiff.
 
rsa coral gables said:
she wasn't "that" offended by getting offered BBC (if it was offered) because she shook his hand at the end of the exchange.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily draw this conclusion based on my experience working in big corporate hospitality while I was in undergrad. Guests say and do pretty alarming things. It has almost certainly been drilled into this employees mind many times over that the customer is right, keep a smile on your face, be cordial, and report it to your supervisor if you are not in imminent danger/being asked to do something illegal when interacting with guests.
 
Last edited:
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Wrong. It was already a story.

Additionally, any prospective employers would surely know about it. He was already harmed.

The fact that more people nationally know about it is not relevant to the possible income harm suffered, because most of those people would not be prospective employers, the people that would hire him or continue to pay him have already been drenched in the information or misinformation way before any of this publicity that you’re claiming.

You’re trying way too hard to make this look as bad as possible for him.
Click to expand...
This isn’t Michael’s fault. It’s bad lawyering.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Wrong. It was already a story.

Additionally, any prospective employers would surely know about it. He was already harmed.

The fact that more people nationally know about it is not relevant to the possible income harm suffered, because most of those people would not be prospective employers, the people that would hire him or continue to pay him have already been drenched in the information or misinformation way before any of this publicity that you’re claiming.

You’re trying way too hard to make this look as bad as possible for him.
Click to expand...

The issue is that he's a public figure and it's extremely hard for public figures to win defamation cases. He has to show Marriott acted with "actual malice" (basically means they knew they were lying about him or acted with reckless disregard for the truth). Now that the video is out, I just don't see how he wins unless there is an actual audio recording with the conversation. With what I've seen so far, a judge isn't going to be able to determine whether he did or didn't say it, so it's impossible to establish that Marriott knowingly lied. And the burden of proof is on Irvin as the plaintiff to show that Marriott knew it was lying when it informed the NFL (I think that's his employer) about possible inappropriate behavior. This might be unfair to Irvin, but he's not the first public figure whose name was dragged through the mud and wasn't able to clear the high bar to prove defamation.
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, expect I wonder if her manager (the guy with the vest) was upset with her first for talking to Irvin, and she then made this accusation as a way to deflect the attention from herself.
Let me also add the following. Suppose Irvin did hit on her or compliment her looks. Shouldn’t men and women have the freedom to say those things so long as they don’t physical threaten, or stalk, or do anything beyond hitting on the other person? Are we so sensitive that people can’t even approach each other without upsetting someone’s feelings?
Looks like overreach to me by Marriott and now Irvin is left trying to clean up his reputation.
Click to expand...

16.78% chance she's banging her manager and he got jealous about her interacting with Michael and made her file a revenge complaint. He totally looked like he was rage stalking the situation in the video.
 
Last edited:
AtlAtty said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, expect I wonder if her manager (the guy with the vest) was upset with her first for talking to Irvin, and she then made this accusation as a way to deflect the attention from herself.
Let me also add the following. Suppose Irvin did hit on her or compliment her looks. Shouldn’t men and women have the freedom to say those things so long as they don’t physical threaten, or stalk, or do anything beyond hitting on the other person? Are we so sensitive that people can’t even approach each other without upsetting someone’s feelings?
Looks like overreach to me by Marriott and now Irvin is left trying to clean up his reputation.
Click to expand...
That’s not allowed!! Hit on a guy or girl?!??!! Such a fossil.

You’re supposed to swipe right or left or whatever it is. Talking as a form of communication is not allowed.

In all seriousness, exactly as I was thinking. Back in the day, you would walk up to a girl and compliment her and ask her out or get a coffee or just straight up “Let’s go ****” if you were out all night at the club or whatever.

Bring back “verbal communication without being offended.”
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, expect I wonder if her manager (the guy with the vest) was upset with her first for talking to Irvin, and she then made this accusation as a way to deflect the attention from herself.
Let me also add the following. Suppose Irvin did hit on her or compliment her looks. Shouldn’t men and women have the freedom to say those things so long as they don’t physical threaten, or stalk, or do anything beyond hitting on the other person? Are we so sensitive that people can’t even approach each other without upsetting someone’s feelings?
Looks like overreach to me by Marriott and now Irvin is left trying to clean up his reputation.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point about the young lady trying to deflect attention from herself. I saw absolutely no evidence in that video that the young lady was intimidated, in fear, uncomfortable, or offended.

Suppose she propositioned Michael. Not likely but IF she did and he politely rejected her offer for whatever reason (lightly touching her elbow as a way of politely rejecting her), she could be acting out like a scorned girlfriend. Then Michael walks away slapping his head like ****, I had to let that one get away.
 
Advertisement
PIPO said:
That’s not allowed!! Hit on a guy or girl?!??!! Such a fossil.

You’re supposed to swipe right or left or whatever it is. Talking as a form of communication is not allowed.

In all seriousness, exactly as I was thinking. Back in the day, you would walk up to a girl and compliment her and ask her out or get a coffee or just straight up “Let’s go ****” if you were out all night at the club or whatever.

Bring back “verbal communication without being offended.”
Click to expand...
i knew a guy, he was a dirt bag and somewhat low class, who would ask chicks within a few minutes of meeting them whether they wanted to **** in the ***** or in the ***. your choice. believe it or not, he had moderate success. not a bad strategy, better than beta swiping.
 
rsa coral gables said:
i knew a guy, he was a dirt bag and somewhat low class, who would ask chicks within a few minutes of meeting them whether they wanted to **** in the ***** or in the ***. your choice. believe it or not, he had moderate success. not a bad strategy, better than beta swiping.
Click to expand...
Fishing with dynamite.

Knew a guy in military. Employed technique around the world. He actually kept a spreadsheet tracking reactions/outcomes*.

I think he had 20%-ish global success** rate.

If you committ to the life, it does kinda produce.

*one time in Prague it almost got us all killed by Czech gangstahs
**fuggin fuggin fuggin
 
rsa coral gables said:
he is the plaintiff, you are right, but it is actually Marriott's burden to prove that he said something offensive to her to warrant his removal and ratting to the employer.
Click to expand...
Not sure I entirely agree with that.

-Mike has the burden to demonstrate that something defamatory was said about him by Marriot to the NFL. This burden is fairly heavy--he needs to prove his case in his case-in-chief or it gets tossed before the defense gets to put on their case.
-Once he meets that burden, then it is the burden of Marriot to demonstrate that something was conveyed to them by the lady that caused concern. This is likely a relatively easy burden met with simple testimony by a Marriot employee that "xyz" was conveyed to them. Then, it turns into a credibility battle between the young lady and Michael re: what was said. (Hence why I think this is a risky proposition.) Anyways, if a jury determines she is credible, Michael's case is likely over.

I've simplified it and cases can take turns (if, for example, Marriot misrepresented what she said to the NFL or Marriot ran with it without conducting its own investigation) but I'm keeping it big picture.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top